![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Smith v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 935 (Admin) (01 April 2014) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/935.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 935 (Admin) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
OF
JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
![]() ![]() Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
OF
THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE)
____________________
![]() ![]() |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
(1) ![]() ![]() - and – (2) South Buckinghamshire District Council |
Defendants |
____________________
for
the Claimant
Mr Stephen Whale (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for
the First Defendant
No appearance for
the Second Defendant
Hearing date: 25 February 2014
____________________
OF
JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Mr C M G Ockelton :
"The useof
land
for
the stationing
of
caravans
for
residential purposes
for
1 no. gypsy pitch together with the formation
of
additional hard standing and utility/day room ancillary to that use."
"The law has always made a clear distinction between the questionof
whether something is a material consideration and the weight which it should be given. The former is a question
of
law and the latter is a question
of
planning judgement, which is entirely a matter
for
the Planning Authority. Provided that the Planning Authority has regard to all material considerations, it is at liberty (provided that it does not lapse into Wednesbury irrationality) to give them whatever weight the Planning Authority thinks fit or no weight at all. The fact that the law regards something as a material consideration therefore involves no view about the part, if any, which it should play in the decision-making process.
This distinction between whether something is a material consideration and the weight which it should be given is only one aspectof
a fundamental principle
of
British planning law, namely that the courts are concerned only with the legality
of
the decision-making process and not with the merits
of
the decision. If there is one principle
of
planning law more firmly settled than any other, it is that matters
of
planning judgement are within the exclusive province
of
the Local Planning Authority or the
Secretary of State
."
- "The extent
of
the harm caused to the Green Belt in addition to the harm by reason
of
inappropriateness;
- the development's effects on the aims
of
the Colne Valley Park;
- whether there is a general need
for
gypsy and traveller sites at local, regional or national level;
- whether any alternative sites are available, or likely to become available through the development plan process;
- and whether there are any other relevant personal circumstances weighing in favour
of
the development."
"Given the Park's long-established status and strategic importance, I give significant weight to the harm that would be caused to its aims, over and above the harm to the Green Belt."
"55. Although the appellant argues that no sites have been identifiedfor
gypsy and traveller development, this appears to be incorrect in the light
of
the extant permission
for
three pitches at the County Council-owned Mansion Lane site. Even if the County is not now intending to carry out the development, or is not in a position to, that need not prevent the site from being made available to an occupier on a self-funding basis. There is no evidence as to whether the County Council would be open to such an approach, but it is clear that the appellant has made no enquiries in that respect. This seems to me a significant failing, given that such enquiries could fairly easily have established whether the site is potentially available or not. "
"18. After the Hearing there was a fairly lengthy delay in the decision coming out, partof
this was a result
of
having to consult both parties on the effect
of
the publication
of
the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Policy
for
Gypsy and Traveller Sites. Even after this there was however a significant delay, such that a member
of
my Staff, Eleanor Kidd contacted the case office about the delay. We subsequently received on Friday 22nd June 2012, an email [attached as Exhibit MG1] clearly intended to be between casework staff at the planning inspectorate. Our receipt
of
this was seemingly unintentional as the case officer who sent it subsequently tried to withdraw it….
19. The email contains an extract from an email by the Inspector. That email extract reveal that the Inspector's decision was going to the read by the Inspector's "G&T [Gypsy and Traveller] training mentor and by reading unit". It seems likely that changes to the decision are likely to have been made after others had considered the Inspector's decision and as a result the independenceof
the Inspector as the decision maker appears to be in doubt.
20. We have subsequently written to Mark Southgate, the Directorof
Casework at the Planning Inspectorate asking a number
of
questions about this matter and requesting a copy
of
the decision as it was before it was seen by the Inspector's G&T training and mentor and by the reading unit."
"The national policies contained in the Framework and the PPTS are relevant to the appeal, and have been taken into account."